'He slams Cheney for thinking the justice system can’t handle these terrorists, and then in the next breath admits that the justice system can’t handle these terrorists. After all, what does the justice system consist of if not Miranda rights, and treating all suspects impartially (like the shoplifter down the block), and the whole panoply of protections we offer criminal defendants? If the terrorists deserve habeas corpus rights, then why don’t they deserve Miranda rights? And who gets to decide exactly what they deserve — the president? And on top of everything, Obama even recognizes the need for preventative detention. What “mechanism to make sure that they are not released and do us harm” does he think he’s going to “figure out”? By this point I can’t even imagine what Obama thinks he disagrees with Cheney about.
The fact is that Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo has solved nothing but a cosmetic problem — just like the decision to drop the term “enemy combatants” without changing anything substantial about their legal status.
Obama is emerging as a master of cosmetics. But he shows little sign of really understanding the questions that his predecessors faced, nor of how difficult those questions are. Now he has to focus on them, understand them, and come up with answers — and he will still need to put the matter before Congress so the people can choose where to strike the balance. Let’s hope he’s precocious enough to accomplish all of that in his freshman year.'
Thats absolutely not good enough. Even Obamas supporters say that two years campaigning for president constitutes his valid experience for the role. He campaigned for two years without EVER considering the real facts about Guantanamo, the people incarcerated there and what other provisions for keeping those people might be available. Now, we are told, that he's in charge, he's finally got around to actually thinking about the subject. Seriously?
By now, my feelings on this subject are well known. Non-uniformed combatants who plan to, and then procede according to their plans to use innocent bystanders as cover, deserve one fate alone: a bullet in the back of the head. In every conflict since the invention of the Geneva conventions, that has been the rule. No point having rules of war if there is no downside to breaking them. A quick death by summary execution is not nearly the worst fate that could befall islamist terrorists- being a prisoner is most Arab countries can be far far worse.
Having Gitmo never struck me as sensible. Exactly as could have been predicted, all those who wish for political reasons for the west to fail and be conquered by those it has 'oppressed' use Gitmo as an example of menacing tyranny, rather than what it is: almost ludicrous civility towards an implacable enemy. To the unobservant, Gitmo is a concentration camp. In reality, it is a gentle resting place for terrorists in between periods of martial engagement. The foods great, the Korans are free, and anti-US Imams are on tap. You might have to put up with some weird light shows and loud music occasionally, but nothing you wouldn't experience at an Iron Maiden concert.
But this article clearly demarcates what the real concerns are- how to square a fight against an enemy which plays by no rules, let alone Queensbury rules with our traditions of civil rights and personal freedoms. And President Obama, the greatly esteemed law professor (hollow laughter), has no answers and no interesting thoughts that might lead to any.
Stuffed shirt. All mouth and no trousers. Take your pick...